half empty maps and cities dotted all over the place.... is this just me?

[thesiteseed]

Is it just me, or does almost every civ 5 game end up with half empty maps and unconnected cities dotted all over the place?

This silly reliance on luxuries for happiness is clearly the cause, but I've started a lot of games and they all end up the same incoherent mess.

Do people really think that having three cities on opposite sides of the continent but next to luxuries would keep a populous happier than a compact and contiguous border with cities together? They don't even have to be connected to the capital to get the reward - is ridiculous.

Maybe I'm not using city states enough, maybe I'm not focusing on building enough 'happiness' buildings, but the AI does the same (especially the Arabians it seems).

Am I missing something here?

(on an aside, I managed to start a game with two Arabian civilizations last time - surely this shouldn't be possible)

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Here we go again!

 

[elthrasher]

There's a limited number of civs in the game. If you start a map that includes more opponents than civs in the game, you'll get repeats. Would you rather the game just explode?

As for city locations, I think you'll find that most real-world civilizations founded cities in locations that made sense strategically or had access to resources they desired. Look at an early map of the USA such as this one: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/maps/1800/

Cities are spread out with lots of wilderness between them. Later on we backfilled in a lot of those areas and now our cities are closer together. I am not at all saying that Civ5 is or should be realistic, but I'm not really seeing the problem here either. Most players grab the good land first, then may or may not fill in more cities later (if going for a many city strategy).

 

[gunnthra]

Is it just me, or does almost every civ 5 game end up with half empty maps and unconnected cities dotted all over the place?

My games never end up like that. Usually by about half way through the game, quite nearly all of my cities will be connected through their culture radii. While this is not really all that important, if it is an effect you would like to achieve, try building more culture buildings, or get the social policy in the tradition branch that increases border growth. Or build the angor wat.

This silly reliance on luxuries for happiness is clearly the cause, but I've started a lot of games and they all end up the same incoherent mess.

Luxury resources were supposed to be one of the new ways to make certain locations more preferential for cities than others. However, the more you play, the more youll realize that only your initial so many cities need to be tied to luxuries.

Do people really think that having three cities on opposite sides of the continent but next to luxuries would keep a populous happier than a compact and contiguous border with cities together? They don't even have to be connected to the capital to get the reward - is ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Imagine that you had never played a civ game where you had to connect your cities to receive luxury bonuses. Would this system seem so insane then? No. You are just upset that this game is different. But if you think about it, this system allows a lot more FREEDOM in both the order and location you settle your cities. Also, you don't benefit from roading EVERY SINGLE TILE ON THE MAP, which is a refreshing change for me.

Maybe I'm not using city states enough, maybe I'm not focusing on building enough 'happiness' buildings, but the AI does the same (especially the Arabians it seems).

Yeah you almost certainly aren't focusing happiness buildings enough. Colosseums should be prioritized depending on your strategy. And the AI ALWAYS has ridiculous surplus happiness. They even mentioned over prioritization of happiness as a flaw in their AI in one of the patch notes. So yeah, no.

(on an aside, I managed to start a game with two Arabian civilizations last time - surely this shouldn't be possible)

It shouldn't be possible. Its never happened to me and I've never heard anyone say anything of the sort. It must have been a bug.

 

[lschnarch]

It shouldn't be possible. Its never happened to me and I've never heard anyone say anything of the sort. It must have been a bug.

This happens as soon as you set more active "civilizations" than you have (due to missing DLC "civs").

 

[spicytimothy]

I hate the British squeezing in every remote corner of the world.

Oh and the same thing happens in Civ5 too.

haha jk but seriously it's annoying as hell.

 

[bryanw1995]

the reason the OP has tons of empty space is that his difficulty level is so low that ai cities (other than the ****ing russians) don't expand very much culturally. the higher difficulty level players end up with zero open space relatively early in the game, however.

 

[Polish]

I usually play on Prince with standard settings and map size and never have much empty space or unconnected cities beyond the midgame. Possible the OP is playing on large maps w/o many civs and CSs? My starts often focus on resources or strategic placement, but as others have said, I believe that is as it should be.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Trust me, colonies are worth it. If you're on an earth map and it's getting crowded, always be the first one to settle on Australia. Once the barbarians are out, you have tons of strategic resources.

 

[thesiteseed]

the reason the OP has tons of empty space is that his difficulty level is so low that ai cities (other than the ****ing russians) don't expand very much culturally. the higher difficulty level players end up with zero open space relatively early in the game, however.

well i play on king usually.... i know its not the highest, but i think thats a reasonable difficulty level for someone who can't devote much time to civ.

Possible the OP is playing on large maps w/o many civs and CSs? My starts often focus on resources or strategic placement, but as others have said, I believe that is as it should be.

I play on small, or sometimes standard, maps with standard numbers of civs and city states.

Thanks for the feedback, I felt like I was doing something wrong, but seems like i'm not, except maybe not focusing on happiness buildings and culture enough. I just like war too much i think.

 

[Aneurism]

I usually play on a tiny map with 1 extra civ more then the default. I dont even really find the map to be too small.

 

[lordsurya08]

Trust me, colonies are worth it. If you're on an earth map and it's getting crowded, always be the first one to settle on Australia. Once the barbarians are out, you have tons of strategic resources.

 

[pazmacats]

Is it just me, or does almost every civ 5 game end up with half empty maps and unconnected cities dotted all over the place?

This is a direct result of your warmongering. I suggest you lose a war once in a while and stop razing all those AI cities!